Father
Literary Analysis Traditionally, the father in the story has historically taken on the allegorical and metaphorical role of God. Commentaries have routinely portrayed him as the embodiment of forgiveness, redemption, and love. To some, his extension of grace by forgiving the prodigal son is a personification of God’s goodness towards mankind and everlasting steadfastness. Psalm 133 has often been associated with this particular scene where the father embodies the opening line, “Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity.” There are certain beliefs that the Father is demonstrating the deep love of God in heaven and by his uncharacteristic forgiveness of having been wronged by the son’s disrespectful request for his inheritance, shows unmitigated grace that can only come from God the father. Historical Criticism The notion of the son asking for his portion of the estate has been argued about as to the propriety of the son’s ask and therefore, how angry the father should be at the son. Some scholars state that the actions of the father in v. 20 demonstrate cultural norms that bring forth exceptional grace on his part. NSRV states, “So he set off and went to his father. But while he was still far off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion; he ran and put his arms around him and kissed him.” The kiss itself has been seen as a thorough forgiveness that is tantamount to grace. The fact of running on the part of the father out to the son was not a normal traditional act on the part of a father. The propriety of the time in 1st Century Palestine would have the father waiting on the son for the son to pay proper respect for the father. Indeed, the embracing and especially the kissing meant a level of forgiveness that some scholars believe went above and beyond the norm expected of an aggrieved and disrespected father. Scholars feel that Jesus is exaggerating to make a point at the expense of the cultural norms of the time. 1st century Judaic zeitgeist would have precluded such actions on the part of the father. History of Interpretation The classic interpretations have the father not only representing God by engaging in specific acts that have deep theological overtures. One traditional interpretation has the story expounding theological beliefs, including but not limited to: (1) God is willing to forgive prodigals and self-righteous bigots alike, provided that they will receive his mercies and enter the feast of the kingdom. (2) To confess to God is easier than to man. (3) The great joys of God's kingdom are in those once dead to sin, and the finding of that which was lost.1 It has been stated that Barclay made a major insight from this parable when he said: “It should never have been called the parable of the prodigal son, for the son is not the hero ... It should be called the parable of the loving father, for it tells us rather about a Father's love than a son's sin.”2 With the father representing God, the issues of grace, forgiveness, and abiding love are made so manifest that it has been almost a universal hermeneutic. Theological Themes and Implications Here you can talk about the theological implications of possible interpretations and moral lessons that come from how the character is presented It is the father who provides both son’s with forgiveness that provides the theological foundation of grace that has been used against the Pharisees in particular and the Jews in general. The very act of “running” to the son is seen as highly significant as it points to the God’s running to forgive sinners who only recant and confess to their sins. Scholars have stated that it was the “humility of God” was what the Pharisees could not understand.3 The traditional view of Pharisees as it has been handed down to Christian audiences is that one who had deliberately sinned – the younger son by leaving the estate and his father -- should not be allowed to come back at all. The very notion of the father God was running to the some is then translated into God meeting everyman in the historical act at the Cross.4 Thus, the theological dichotomy comes into play here between the unforgiving, legalistic Jews and the forgiving, grace filled, Christians that theologians have made out the younger son to represent in classically anti-Judaic treatises of this text. Application to Children and Youth For youth, the traditional view of the father as representing God has been an easy pedagogical tool. He is portrayed as a loving father who is forgiving of both sons, the first for this being so, so foolish, and the second, for being truculent and mean to the first. The father is providing the example for the children to be understanding and not holding a grudge, in major contrast to the older brother who is revenge full and mean-spirited. The father is also shown to be completely forgiving by not chastising the younger son. What is significant in a youth context is the complete absence of the lecture from the father to the younger son. Moreover, the father shows complete generosity to both sons for their disrespect to him that comes out by their being selfish and not thinking about him. In all instances, the father comes out as what a loving God should be: kind, generous, and forgiving. In one particular children’s book, Oh Brother, the father bestows on the younger son a Rolex watch, Italian shoes and kisses. The context being that even in modern times, the best of material goods were given to the prodigal son to exemplify the love of the Father, and in this case, God. Citations 1 Coffman’s Commentaries of the Bible, http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/bcc/view.cgi?bk=lu&ch=15#1 2 William Barclay, The Gospel of Luke (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1956), p. 213. 3 Coffman. 4 Ibid.